Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: March ::
Re: The Riverside Shakespeare
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0362  Wednesday 3 March 1999.

[1]     From:   Takashi Kozuka <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 02 Mar 1999 13:29:37 PST
        Subj:   Re: the Riverside Shakespeare

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 02 Mar 1999 20:05:26 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0349 The Riverside Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Takashi Kozuka <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 02 Mar 1999 13:29:37 PST
Subject:        Re: the Riverside Shakespeare

The Winter 1997 issue of Shakespeare Quarterly (vol. 48 No. 4) has a
review (comparison and contrast) of three one-volume 'Shakespeare's: the
Riverside (2nd edition), Bevington's updated fourth edition, and the new
Norton. This review (pp. 465-472) answers Tom's question. I would like
to summarize the review, but I have a tempest in my head tonight. I
caught a flu or a deadly cold; I have fever, and my body aches.
Hopefully, another SHAKSPER subscriber can post a brief summary of the
review (or at least of the section that answers Tom's question).

Takashi Kozuka
PhD Student
Centre for the Study of the Renaissance
University of Warwick (UK)

[Editor's Note: I too reviewed all three editions in The of Contents
column in two separate issues of The Shakespeare Newsletter. Sorry I do
not have the citations at hand. -Hardy]

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 02 Mar 1999 20:05:26 -0500
Subject: 10.0349 The Riverside Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0349 The Riverside Shakespeare

Tad Davis wrote:

>My 1974 copy of the Riverside Shakespeare has finally succumbed. (The
>final blow came when my dog decided she liked Shakespeare, or at least
>the glue that held this particular Shakespeare together.) I've looked at
>the 1997 revision. It appears to have a fair amount of new material, but
>it's not clear if any of the existing editorial material, or the text
>itself, has been revised. Are there any substantive changes to the text
>or notes?

Very few.  Of course, the Second Ed adds EdwIII and the Elegy and
includes a couple of new essays, but the text of the works in the First
Ed is virtually unaltered.

When the new edition came out I asked the same question in a letter to
Houghton Mifflin and received a very nice personal not from G.B. Evans
himself.  Evans noted that extensive changes were made in the
introductory text notes to the various works, but very few actual
changes in the text or footnotes.  He noted only the following text
changes:

                        Ham,II.ii.73
                        Ham,II.ii.541
                        Ham,III.ii.223
                        KL,I.iv.137
                        KL,II.ii.120 (changing "prize" to "poise").
This emendation should have been put in square brackets and when I
called this to Evans' attention he agreed and said it would be fixed in
the next printing.  Houghton Mifflin has not bothered)

I have also noted another minor change -- the addition of "[Edward]" in
2HVI,V.iii.osd.

Evans also points out that three footnotes were corrected or revised:

                    T/S,III.iii.157
                    M/M,I.ii.129
                    M/M,IV.i.1-6

There do not appear to be any other changes.  In fact, the bulk of the
Second Ed text is printed from the First Ed plates.  For example, there
is a typo in the footnote to C/E,IV.iv.30 (on page 130 of the Second
Edition) which reproduces the same mistake in the First Ed (the
compositor misread a marginal proofreader's mark as an addition and
omitted to make the intended correction).  Another instance is the extra
leading in a number of places where the editor decided to omit a comma
after the First Ed galleys were printed.  Rather than re-compose the
entire line and risk more mistakes, extra spacing was allowed.  (This
explanation was provided by Evans.)  The same extra spacing appears in
the Second Ed.

If anyone finds any other changes, I would be grateful for the
information.
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.